Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.
Full Story

<quoted text>It boggles my mind just how morally challenged theists can be. Ethics are the rules of group cooperation, nothing more. They have nothing at all to do with your sky fairy beliefs. The golden rule is pretty simple. We do not kill witches for the same reason we do not kill theists. We should treat each other as we want to be treated. This is the basic principle that allows civilization to exist. Morals evolved in us because they are a benefit to our survival.By the way, faith is immoral for it is dishonest. Honest people admit to not knowing things that are not known, theists just fill in all the blanks to all the tough questions with the word god and considered the matter solved. Theists are both mentally lazy and dishonest.

Iain Banks punctured your twatballoon years ago.Instead of getting into a long debate about whether it is right or wrong to use torture to get information to save people from an impending bomb blast he cut through it thus:Yes.You torture the person.You prevent the bomb killing civilians.Then you hand yourself in to the authorities.End of moral dilemma.<quoted text>

<quoted text>You first appeal to an absolute standard of morality.You then appeal to subjective morality.You then appeal to absolute standards of morality.Your whole post is illogical, as it is full of contradictions...

<quoted text>Not really. Conservation of energy is a local, not just a global phenomenon. The Higg's particle 'produces mass' only in the sense that the symmetry breaking and the resulting interaction with the Higg's produces resistance to forces (i.e, mass). Also, the vast majority of ordinary matter gets its mass from a *different* symmetry breaking, not from the Higg's (which produces masses for the larger quarks and some other large particles).

Conservation of energy , depends if isolated / open or closed.We cant be sure if it even applies on a universal scale, but assuming it does.How can we isolate or close a galaxy or even solar system? We can isolate them or close them to within the universe.

Unless I don't understand it, it's pretty much claimed the Higgs field gives mass to ordinary particles. Though not the only way, and not all mass needed for an atom, or other things found or unknown such as dark matter, and black holes.

Here is an interesting take on it, But you're the particle man.But I've been led to thing the Higgs field (fields) are the reason.

"The Higgs field (or fields) and its particle (or particles, if any) are collectively referred to as the “Higgs sector”. I’ll use that term as a catch-all in the following discussion. The simplest possible Higgs sector is the one that appears in the so-called “Standard Model of Particle Physics”, a set of equations describing all of the known elementary particles and the simplest possible Higgs sector: one Higgs field and its associated Higgs particle.[Actually that's the way things are after the Higgs field becomes non-zero; to see what things are like before the Higgs field is non-zero, read this article, which shows the Higgs sector actually starts off with four Higgs particles, and ends up with one.] But far more complicated Higgs sectors, with many more fields and particles, might be present in nature. For them, the implications of the current Higgs searches are correspondingly much more complicated to characterize."

It would be immoral not to save civilians from a bomb blast if you could.

An all powerful god that lets children get shot, or die of leukaemia, or get raped by priests, or to be threatened with eternal damnation would also be immoral- if such a god existed.

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>But how do you define the right thing.I have yet to see you present a reasonable basis for morality.Your last attempt was it is okay to be immoral as long as you pay for the crime later.The ends justify the means in other words.

<quoted text>Those virtual particles are effects of the motion of space producing matter.You can't collect pixels in a bucket. They aren't really "solid". "Pixels" are just swirls of energy impacted by a stream of energy, which "lights" them up giving an appearance of solidity.

That was an approximation, or 2D representation of a 4D process.Not sure how virtual particles come to be really, I'm not sure the case is closed on them at all. They are mysterious though.

<quoted text>Thank you.Point proved.Slavery was not wrong then, but is now.And if tomorrow society decides that slavery of a few will benefit the majority, with your reasoning, you are duty bound to follow that decision.If you have lived in Germany during the 1930's, with your reasoning here, you would have been a nazi...Have you really thought this through thoroughly?

Slavery may not have been moral then (to us), but was considered such 2-6 thousand years ago. But you can't apply one standard against the other because we do not understand life the same way.

Survival is not necessarily an submission of approval.One may be a Nazi in 1940's Germany for no other reason than fear.Yes morality is subjective like that but you have to remember the dynamics that the singular impression of it may differ from the majority. But you are also using two standards where one is pretty much universal in 1940 Germany , the seeds of freedom had been already been sewn throughout the world.

<quoted text>But even after several days, you still cannot account how you keep appealing to absolute moral standards, whilst denying they exist?...

You have yet to define what you mean by "absolute moral standards". Those listed in the Bible most certainly cannot be what you are talking about.

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>...You keep making authority claims about morality, but what is your ultimate standard of morality upon which you keep measuring moral issues with?...

No, I don't. But I realize it is beyond you to understand.

mtimber wrote:

<quoted text>You certainly do not get it from atheism, which you want to present as a rational viewpoint to adopt...

Atheism only informs you of what I am NOT, i.e., I am not a theist. It tells you nothing about what I am. Again this appears to be too hard for you to understand.

What I am is a Humanist.

Humanists understand that ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of responsible freedom.

Humanists understand that humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence.

Humanists understand that working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process.

<quoted text>So, the morality that your family abides by is the morality that you learned in India or England? Was it learned from your religion or your town?What makes you believe that your morality is superior to mine?

I learnt it from my mummy, who learnt it from her mummy, and so on, they influenced by Nanak and the saints. i honestly don't know if we influenced by our religion or born this way, but we agree with Nanak and we don't wanna see others in pain. This feeling runs through all my mother's side of the family. There might be 1 rotten apple in the family, i'm sure. But my papa's side of the family also go to the gurudwara, believe in Nanak, but they are pure evil! I don't know maybe some people just don't wanna even try to be good.

I never said my morality was superior than your? morality is mortality how can u have different levels, killing someone is wrong, killing them softly is worse than killing them quickly?

I was trying to tell u that since the beginning of the hindu religion, which was started thousands of years before any other religion, it might even be the first ever religion on the planet. The saints in that religion are saying, murder, rape, slavery is wrong, so how can u say morality changes?

I don't know about western religions, but in the eastern religions, morality has always been the same. Yes, people in India kept slaves, raped women, murdered etc..but everyone always knew it was immoral. But stupid, ignorant, powerful people still do evil things!

<quoted text>Now let me apply the same arbitrary argument so you can see how logically absurd it is, back to you:EVERY argument for arockdidit is an argument from ignorance based not upon knowledge but rather the absence of it. arockdidit = human ignorance.That rabbit hole isn't worth pursuing.

<quoted text>You have yet to define what you mean by "absolute moral standards". Those listed in the Bible most certainly cannot be what you are talking about.<quoted text>No, I don't. But I realize it is beyond you to understand.<quoted text>Atheism only informs you of what I am NOT, i.e., I am not a theist. It tells you nothing about what I am. Again this appears to be too hard for you to understand.What I am is a Humanist.Humanists understand that ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of responsible freedom.Humanists understand that humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence.Humanists understand that working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process.

That humanism is an offshoot of Christianity.

You wouldn't have it without Christianity, or a belief in a higher authority. Now you want to kill Christianity and higher authorities.

That higher authority concept is what keeps men kind of honest. Makes them less prone to discard what they consider less productive or capable. You should thank God religion exists.

<quoted text>You first appeal to an absolute standard of morality.You then appeal to subjective morality.You then appeal to absolute standards of morality.Your whole post is illogical, as it is full of contradictions...

<quoted text>Your group cooperation requires the elimination of threats to said group and its survival as a group. Meaning you kill your enemies, or render them no longer a threat. You may even gain an economic advantage in enslaving them. It also means silencing dissidents within the group.Strictly a secularist thing.Any sense of "group" beyond your immediate one is based upon some ideal beyond the physical.You are a confused person.

<quoted text>But how do you define the right thing.I have yet to see you present a reasonable basis for morality.Your last attempt was it is okay to be immoral as long as you pay for the crime later.The ends justify the means in other words.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.